Where our squad comes from - a comparison to West Coast

[NMWBloods]

I had a look through our 22 against West Coast's 22 to see if they have a huge advantage of high draft picks over us. In some cases I converted trades into draft pick levels, so it is only approximate, but it gives some idea. This is the split.

WC                   SS
       Draft picks
3       1 -- 5        2
2       6 -- 10       3
4      11 -- 20       2
3      21 -- 30       3
5      31 +           6
4      Rookies        4
1      Father/Son     0
0      Zone           2

Note that each side has 1 Brownlow medallist, and 2 of the 31+ for the Swans are Goodes and O'Loughlin.

[Charlie]

A bit deceptive - it's actually at least three top five picks (Drew Banfield, Michael Gardiner and Chris Judd, unless you're saying Banfield isn't in their best 22). That's two #1 picks and the best #3 ever.

Also, at least one of the picks they had from six to ten was indeed pick six - Ashley Sampi in the best draft ever. The other was Sam Butler, wasn't it? The father/son selection is of more importance when you consider that it was Ben Cousins.

It would help if you posted who you put in each 22.

[NMWBloods]

But that's the point really isn't it. You say - 'well their pick #6 was fantastic" but what about our pick #5 - not quite so great. They've had some more opportunities, but not enormous and certainly the opportunities don't explain the huge gulf between our sides and our skill levels.

We also have a father/son - that he's not at the level of some other elites is just the way it is.

I pretty much just used the 22 for each side that played this weekend.

Banfield was a zone selection, so I guess that would be a #1 but so is Ball. I had Hall as a 6-10, but could be considered a 1-5 considering what we gave up for him.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
But that's the point really isn't it. You say - 'well their pick #6 was fantastic" but what about our pick #5 - not quite so great. They've had some more opportunities, but not enormous and certainly the opportunities don't explain the huge gulf between our sides and our skill levels.

Certainly. I was just pointing out that your analysis needs to be qualitative as well as quantitative.

They got Sampi after Hodge, Ball, Judd, Polak and Clarke were selected - with the benefit of hindsight, he could easily have been #4. West Coast lucked out - they got two top six picks in the best draft ever, and the teams above them managed to stuff it up.

I pretty much just used the 22 for each side that played this weekend.

Ah, I see. Can you be bothered actually naming the players in each group, and posting what the picks were?

[liz]

West Coast are going fantastically well this year but have arguably underperformed for the past two years with the bulk of their current squad in place. Indeed, they were very very ordinary for the first half of last year before coming home with a wet sail.

On the other hand, the Saints were going great guns this time a year ago with supposedly the most naturally talented squad and this year have been very patchy, even allowing for their injury woes.

Things seem to happen to squads, either for runs of games or for a season, and they suddenly play to the maximum ability of their squad. It probably happened to the Swans in 2003 and is happening to the Weagles at the moment. Confidence breeds confidence. And the opposite can happen, when a decently talented group of players plays to a level lower than its collective ability.

[NMWBloods]

Actually - I think I used today's 22 for WC but a mix for us.

Draft picks
1 -- 5 - Judd, Gardiner, Banfield
Ball, McVeigh

6 -- 10 - Sampi, Chick
J Bolton, Crouch, Hall, (I had another here but can't recall why, so I've taken it out)

11 -- 20 - Kerr, Butler, Glass, Stenglein
Jolly, Saddington

21 -- 30 - Butler, Jones, Hunter
Ablett, Nicks, LRT

31 + - Hansen, Embley, Braun, Lecras, Staker
O'Loughlin, Goodes, O'Keefe, C Bolton, Buchanan, Schneider

Rookies - Lynch, Fletcher, Cox, Nicoski
Bevan, Kirk, Kennelly, Vogels

Father/Son - Cousins

Zone
Mathews, Barry

[Mike_B]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Rookies - Lynch, Fletcher, Cox, Nicoski
Bevan, Kirk, Kennelly, Vogels

While we haven't done too badly here, Cox is one of the top 2 or 3 ruckmen in the AFL at the moment and Fletcher was AA midfielder last year. For us, Vogels is still largely untested, Kennelly has proved valuable if not spectacular, Kirk has been a gem and Bevan is having a 2nd year struggle - not sure where he will end up.

[NMWBloods]

Shows how well they are developing their talent internally and how we're not.

I think Kirk has risen through his own sheer hard work, while Kennelly has done so through his own natural talent. Neither of them look like 'normal' footballers and both suffer from basic skill errors and I just get the feeling that they would have developed better at a different club.

[Bleed Red Blood]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
11 -- 20 - Kerr, Butler, Glass, Stenglein

21 -- 30 - Butler, Jones, Hunter

The first Butler should be Waters, though he didn't play on the weekend.

[giant]

Very interesting analysis & I think (kinda) supports your thesis, which I assume is something like "Roosy, stop calling us working class!"

Have to say tho I don't think the Eagles are the shoo-in for the flag that others seem to think they are - their forward line remains a bit brittle so they're dependent on their midfeilders kicking goals. Still, like their chances better than ours...

[NMWBloods]

It's just simply we need to make more with what we have. It's not like every team that does well has a massive number of high draft picks relative to every other team. You also need to work at internally developing your players, improving their skills and developing an appropriate game plan. It seems just too easy to offer up easy excuses that it's not the club's fault - we don't have the advantages the other teams do.

No team is a shoo-in this year. It's a very open competition and that's why our crap performance is so frustrating - we are missing the greatest opportunity to win a flag just about ever. No team is full of superstars, each one has their weaknesses, but most are at least coming out and looking like they are trying to win and trying to kick goals, rather than simply looking to strangle their opposition.

[giant]

Yep, no arguments from me.

As Charlie has said elsewhere, this Swans team could be a top 4 side this year if the planets aligned (game plan, confidence, injuries, effort). Looking at the ladder I don't see a team besides WCE that we couldn't beat on our day. And at the MCG in September we could give the Eagles a run for their money too.

But it all looks a long way away at the moment.....

[barry]

West Coast havent acheived anything yet. This is the first year they've been ahead of the swans for ages.

If they convert that side into a premier, then you have a point. But I'm not convinced yet.

[NMWBloods]

I'm not comparing us to sides that have won flags. I'm simply comparing to sides that are performing well and saying that we should stop trying to invent excuses of why we aren't doing as well.

BTW - WC were ahead in 2002.

[Sean]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I'm simply comparing to sides that are performing well and saying that we should stop trying to invent excuses of why we aren't doing as well.

Here's a good excuse for ya

When it comes to developing players the competition is far from even - we are at a huge disadvantage. When the Eagles draft their kids and Rookies each year, what happens to them? They play a year or two in the WAFL. What happens to ours - they play in the ACTAFL!

One of the reasons for kids to play a year in the reserves is to play against the "big bodies". Well, ours don't get to play against big bodies and they play against guys that are hugely inferior to them in terms of skills.

After playing in the SANFL for a year do you think that Grundy is going to improve playing in the ACTAFL? I don't think so.

It's even worse for the local kids. They play junior footy, perhaps SFL or ACTAFL (for us occasionally) and then when we draft them they spend another year or two in the ACTAFL. No wonder we are having trouble developing them.

Not sure if you could really quantify the disadvantage but I think it's there. I'd be happy to have some type of loan system re-introduced into the AFL so we could send some of our kids to the WAFL, SANFL or VFL for a year.

Of course Brisbane have a similar problem although the QAFL seems to be better than the ACTAFL. Perhaps we are now seeing them struggle because their kids don't have the talent that Voss, Akermanis and so on had and the level of competition up there is hindering their development.